Pradeep Kant and Rajiv Sharma, JJ. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi and Sri Rahul Srivastava, holding brief of Sri U. P. Singh, advocate on behalf of the respondent-Power Corporation.
(2.) Before dealing with the merits of the case, we would like to remind one and all that the decision in the writ petitions are taken on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. Affidavits so filed, form pleadings and the basis for deciding the lis between the contesting parties. Due sanctity has to be attached to the affidavits and it is the bounden duty of the learned Counsel appearing in the matters and particularly those who are drafting the petition to put correct facts on record and assist the Court truthfully, honestly and legally by placing all facts into the affidavits, which are relevant and are necessary for either raising a dispute or deciding an issue or for getting a judgment from the Court. Tendency is fast developing of bringing such facts on record, may be correct or not, which may persuade the Court to pass an order in favour of one or the other party. Equal responsibility lies upon the Court to see that the process of administration of justice is not polluted and for that matter verify the facts as far it could be, before relying upon the affidavits filed. Instances are no less in number and the tendency is fast developing that facts are pleaded in such a manner, which may give some benefit to the party concerned. Framing of facts and pleading them in a way so that they may be read in the correct perspective, which may be advantageous to the parties concerned, is not forbidden in law and it depends upon the art of drafting which requires mentioning of all facts for pleading a case but while doing so, care has to be taken that the facts are neither tainted nor they are twisted nor are manipulated and, of course, the relevant facts are not concealed. Since the affidavits form part of the pleadings in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the remedy under Article 226 is a constitutional remedy, more caution and precaution has to be taken by all concerned to see that this system of judicial dispensation of justice is not misused or abused.
(3.) The case in hand is an example where the petitioner, an industry, has been avoiding payment of dues towards electricity charges from the year 1990 and in getting such a long rope, the Company has taken shelter cither of the High Court or of the Minister concerned and has succeeded in not making the payment till date. Needless to mention that our prologue to the present judgment has got a nexus and direct relation with the facts of the present case, which have compelled us to remind that time has come where more care has to be taken in approaching the High Courts and the lawyers should not rely only upon oral version of the dispute which is told to them by their clients but before drafting the petition, should verify each and every fact on the basis of the documentary evidence and particularly with respect to those points where the parties, once or on several times had already approached the High Court. In such cases, it would be essential for a man of ordinary prudence to go through the orders which have been passed in such writ petitions, which have been filed and if those orders are not placed initially by the client, it would be better to inspect the record or unless the orders are not shown, not to file the petition, otherwise the problem which is being faced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case, would be faced by all such lawyers. This is an advice to the young lawyers and no insinuation or aspersion on their working.;